Author name: Marc Alexander

Lodestar, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Fee Recovery To Plaintiff’s Attorney Affirmed As Far As Reductions But Remand Issued To Determine Reasonable Hourly Rate Based On Out-Of-Town Rates

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff’s FEHA Request Was Reduced Drastically, But The Award Likely Will Go Up Some When Out-Of-Town Rates Are Considered—Although The $700,000 Award Was Substantial.             When you are doing appellate work on abuse of discretion issues, the primary issue may be whether the lower court used the correct legal principles as far as reaching its […]

Civil Rights: EAJA Attorney’s Fees Were Properly Denied In Immigration Matter Where It Took A Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel To Decide, Over The Vote Of Three Dissenting Justices, On The Ultimate Merits Issue.

Cases: Civil Rights

Novelty And First Impression Of The Issue Showed That The Government’s Position Was Substantially Justified For EAJA Purposes.             In Medina Tovar v. Zuchowski, No. 21-35664 (9th Cir. July 21, 2022) (published), plaintiffs invalidated a regulation limiting derivative U-visas to spouses married at the time of the filing of the principal petition.  Plaintiffs moved for

Prevailing Party: Lower Court’s Determination That Cross-Defendant Did Not Prevail In Lawsuit, Where Cross-Defendant Paid Some Settlement Funds To Plaintiff and Dueling Summary Adjudication/Motions Were Granted, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Prevailing Party

Cross-Defendant Did Not Obtain Its Crucial Litigation Objectives.             Catalina Media Development, LLC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., Case Nos. B306012/B309162 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 20, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how a discretionary no “prevailing party” determination is not easily overturned unless it is lopsided in nature.             In this one, a servicer responsible for elevator

Equity: Appellate Court Agrees To Stipulated Reversal Of Postjudgment Fee Award Given Merits Reversal

Cases: Equity

However, It Does Raise The Issue Of Whether Stipulated Reversals Specifically Apply To Postjudgment Fee Orders.             This next post is likely of interest to appellate practitioners, because sometimes appellate issues are very technical if not arcane in nature.              In Mid-Wilshire Property, L.P. v. Dr. Leevil, LLC, Case No. G059899 (4th Dist., Div. 3

Private Attorney General: $66,725 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award To Real Party In Interest Reversed Under Private Enforcement Necessity Prong

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Court Of Appeal Found That Real Party’s Contribution Was Duplicative Of City’s Opposition On The Controlling Issue.             In Oak Hill Park Co. v. City of Antioch (Let Antioch Voters Decide), Case No. A162604 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 18, 2022) (unpublished), real party in interest won a $66,725 private attorney general award based on

Civil Rights, Landlord/Tenant: Frivolous FEHA Case By Plaintiffs In Rental Dispute Justified $228,123.77 Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, And Costs Award In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Owner

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

No Abuse Of Discretion Shown, With Prior Denial Of Summary Judgment Not Disqualifying Owner From Award Of FEHA Fees Under The Right Circumstances.             FEHA has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting statute; however, under the right circumstances, a prevailing defendant can obtain fee shifting against a plaintiff where the case is shown to be frivolous in

POOF!, Prevailing Party: Court Of Appeal Determines That Defendant Did Not Prevail Such That $454,071.50 Fee And Additional Costs Award To County Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

This Was A 2-1 Decision; Dissenting Justice Would Have Given Deference To Trial Court’s Reversed Prevailing Party Determination.             Just to show how prevailing party determinations can be to subject to different interpretations, we now post on Youssef v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B302773/B306187 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2022) (unpublished).  The

SLAPP: $5,081.25 SLAPP Fee Award To Defense Sustained On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Attorney Disqualification Efforts Properly Excluded.             This one is interesting because it evokes the old adage “be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are.”  In Elliott v. Maland, Case No. D078935 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2022) (unpublished), a partially successful SLAPP defendant sought $23,976.50 in attorney’s fees but the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fifth District Confronts A Similar Causation Issue Under The California Public Records Act On The Same Day

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Result Was The Same:  Attorney’s Fees Request Were Properly Denied Based On Lack Of Causation.             The Fifth District, in Austin v. City of Taft, confronted a causation situation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  We posted on this case.  The same day, it also decided a similar situation with the same result in

Scroll to Top